If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

As asinine as the arguement is of "should you be able to own nukes, then?" It got me thinking-

IS there a line of what weapons the 2nd amendment applies to? For example, does it cover chemical weapons?

I've always thought of it as a "gun" amendment. But in a completely literal sense, where, if anywhere, is the line drawn? And how would you respond to this *asinine* (at times) question?

Apologies for the asinine question

As written, no... there is no limit. If Congress wants to prevent the people from having certain weapons they should pass a Constitutional Amendment to modify what the Constitution and the 2A say... until then I personally consider nearly every Arms related law to be unconstitutional.

Not decommissioned tanks, fully functioning tanks. Cannons and all... and you can rent one to drive around... AND SHOOT THE CANNON, for pretty damn cheap.

I ask them to find the law that makes it illegal for the People to own tanks... not one has gotten back to me. They have the false premise that tanks are so dangerous that it must obviously be illegal to own them already. But facts shut their argument down pretty quick and turn them into blathering screaming fools. (in my personal experience at least)

Not one has admitted to being wrong as of yet, sadly.

Last edited by Baked on Grease; 03-03-2015 at 07:19 PM.

"A Right Un-exercised is a Right Lost"

"According to the law, [openly carrying] in a vehicle is against the law if the weapon is concealed" -Flamethrower (think about it....)

Carrying an XDm 9mm with Hornady Critical Defense hollowpoint. Soon to be carrying a Ruger along with it....

At the time the Bill of Rights was written, it was not unusual for individuals to own cannon on private vessels. In fact, many privately owned ships were quite effective warships. Hence the name privateers.
A ship of war was as effective and large scale as military weapons got.

At the time the Bill of Rights was written, it was not unusual for individuals to own cannon on private vessels. In fact, many privately owned ships were quite effective warships. Hence the name privateers.
A ship of war was as effective and large scale as military weapons got.

And many ships were decommissioned after the war... and people took those cannons home with them. Top of the line in destructive military power, and nary a thought to regular Joe Shoe farmer toting a cannon home.

"A Right Un-exercised is a Right Lost"

"According to the law, [openly carrying] in a vehicle is against the law if the weapon is concealed" -Flamethrower (think about it....)

Carrying an XDm 9mm with Hornady Critical Defense hollowpoint. Soon to be carrying a Ruger along with it....

To me there is a line, just not directly. Take for example WMDs. Sure you can own them, but I see no reason why the government wouldn't be allowed to regulate them in regards to storage. Reason being, if you improperly store such an item (not talking about the "arms" themselves, but the actual component(s) that make it deadly) there is a great risk of serious harm/death to not just you but those around you too.

Another potential area would be use. So sure, you have this nuke, but you can't simply take it to a range and fire it off. Why not? Because the fallout would cause all sorts of issues for the environment and others. Same goes if you were to try to casually use agent orange. And we already see this in the form of regulating where/when one can discharge a firearm.

Now I know that this could be taken to an extreme and applied to other things (such as attempting to apply it to lead in bullets like CA has done, or a power source if/when energy weapons come about) but that is my view. They aren't infringing on the keeping/bearing of the arms, they are regulating the storage of a legitimately dangerous item if not stored properly. And this "proper storage" has nothing to do with a concern of someone else committing a crime, because again I could see the antis trying to use such reasoning for regulation based on someone else stealing your weapons. Kind of like regulating the disposal of oil. Sure you can have it, but you can't simply dump your used oil in your back yard as that can and eventually will affect those around you.

As asinine as the arguement is of "should you be able to own nukes, then?" It got me thinking-

IS there a line of what weapons the 2nd amendment applies to? For example, does it cover chemical weapons?

I've always thought of it as a "gun" amendment. But in a completely literal sense, where, if anywhere, is the line drawn? And how would you respond to this *asinine* (at times) question?

Apologies for the asinine question

The limit should be what you can afford to own, unless you can show me where it says "except", or limited to.

The words "shall not be infringed" are loud and clear for all to understand. The law says what it means and means what it says. The anti-gun crowd and rogue judges like to misinterpret these clearly written words.

The limit should be what you can afford to own, unless you can show me where it says "except", or limited to.

The words "shall not be infringed" are loud and clear for all to understand. The law says what it means and means what it says. The anti-gun crowd and rogue judges like to misinterpret these clearly written words.

So is it OK if your neighbor is cooking up some agent orange or another neurotoxin? Or a homemade batch of C4, or trying to build a nuclear reactor?

I'm more on the side you are. But I'm posing the above as devils' advocate, as this is the type of stuff it's important to know, as this is stuff the left wing throws out there all the time.

To me there is a line, just not directly. Take for example WMDs. Sure you can own them, but I see no reason why the government wouldn't be allowed to regulate them in regards to storage. Reason being, if you improperly store such an item (not talking about the "arms" themselves, but the actual component(s) that make it deadly) there is a great risk of serious harm/death to not just you but those around you too.

Now I know that this could be taken to an extreme and applied to other things (such as attempting to apply it to lead in bullets or a power source if/when energy weapons come about) but that is my view. They aren't infringing on the keeping/bearing of the arms, they are regulating the storage of a legitimately dangerous item if not stored properly. And this "proper storage" has nothing to do with a concern of someone else committing a crime, because again I could see the antis trying to use such reasoning for regulation based on someone else stealing your weapons. Kind of like regulating the disposal of oil. Sure you can have it, but you can't simply dump your used oil in your back yard as that can and eventually will affect those around you.

I can see this logic, for sure. Not all "arms" take a biochemist or nuclear physicist or safely operate, or build either. So that's a tangent.....lol

that's what the founding fathers wanted.
.
oh, and no more than 10 rounds per magazine.
..
and they wanted a territory that wouldn't become a state for over 50 years after the bill of rights was ratified to decide for its people.
...
and your coat better not cover it up!
..
.
and it better not be out in the open while we're at it.

I can see this logic, for sure. Not all "arms" take a biochemist or nuclear physicist or safely operate, or build either. So that's a tangent.....lol

Yea. It isn't really about the arms either. It is about regulating the handling/storing specific legitimately dangerous items (dangerous on its own without someone even using it). Given that almost anything tangible that is dangerous can be weaponized I think it would be foolish to say that there isn't a line somewhere, or else you could say almost no tangible items can be regulated. Just imagine "This car one of my arms, you can't regulate cars!" Or potato guns and potatoes.

Yea. It isn't really about the arms either. It is about regulating the handling/storing specific legitimately dangerous items (dangerous on its own without someone even using it). Given that almost anything tangible that is dangerous can be weaponized I think it would be foolish to say that there isn't a line somewhere, or else you could say almost no tangible items can be regulated. Just imagine "This car one of my arms, you can't regulate cars!" Or potato guns and potatoes.

Regulation fools and their regulation rules is how the state controls you.

The sooner one realizes that, the less tolerant one becomes of tyranny.

Principles of Tyranny
by Jon Roland
Definition of tyranny

Tyranny is usually thought of as cruel and oppressive, and it often is, but the original definition of the term was rule by persons who lack legitimacy, whether they be malign or benevolent. Historically, benign tyrannies have tended to be insecure, and to try to maintain their power by becoming increasingly oppressive. Therefore, rule that initially seems benign is inherently dangerous, and the only security is to maintain legitimacy — an unbroken accountability to the people through the framework of a written constitution that provides for election of key officials and the division of powers among branches and officials in a way that avoids concentration of powers in the hands of a few persons who might then abuse those powers.

Tyranny is an important phenomenon that operates by principles by which it can be recognized in its early emerging stages, and, if the people are vigilant, prepared, and committed to liberty, countered before it becomes entrenched. to read more:http://www.constitution.org/tyr/prin_tyr.htm

emphasis added. To bad the American people became apathetic to the regulation fools and their regulation rules. Have you ever heard or read the parable of how to boil a frog?.......http://allaboutfrogs.org/stories/boiled.html

We must ask ourselves if we want to be safe or have liberty. Remember, the frog felt safe and comfortable until he wasn't.

We The People have been boiled alive.

And just to be clear, I am a staunch supporter of the Constitution as it was written. I am a staunch supporter of the government and way of life our Founding Fathers envisioned. I love my country only behind God and my family.

"OURS is a system of governments, compounded of the separate governments of the several States composing the Union, and of one common government of all its members, called the Government of the United States. The former preceded the latter, which was created by their agency. Each was framed by written constitutions; those of the several States by the people of each, acting separately, and in their sovereign character; and that of the United States, by the same, acting in the same character — but jointly instead of separately.".......John C. Calhoun http://www.constitution.org/jcc/dcgus.htm

emphasis added.

We are the Sovereign, not the King, not the government. We The People.

As asinine as the arguement is of "should you be able to own nukes, then?" It got me thinking-

IS there a line of what weapons the 2nd amendment applies to? For example, does it cover chemical weapons?

I've always thought of it as a "gun" amendment. But in a completely literal sense, where, if anywhere, is the line drawn? And how would you respond to this *asinine* (at times) question?

Apologies for the asinine question

Do you have any nitrate based fertilizer? A spare can of kerosene or diesel fuel? How about a jug of bleach? Folks have been accused of, and prosecuted for, possessing "chemical weapons" and "explosive materials." Citizens wrongly abused by nitwit cops who had their personal property (guns/ammo) unlawfully confiscated by those nitwit cops have been painted as having a arsenal (more than one or two guns, or more than a box or two of ammo).

No, there is no line. Yet, the feds/states have drawn lines in the law(s).

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

"Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.

It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
"Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

It is easy to imagine new technologies that can bring more and more incredible devastation. It is way more fundamental than the 2A.
When you've created a device to kill vast amounts of non-combatants for any reason it is a permanent ****-stain on the soul of humanity.
How long will it be before there are single payloads that can wipe out entire continents...or even an entire hemisphere... or worse.
No citizens should not have WMDs and neither should governments.
Ideally an arms regression should take place but it is a fantasy. We are doomed.
Someone will eventually develop a Molecular Disruption Device (ender's game) and that will be the end of our pathetic journey.

"I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

Not if you mean a household NPK labelled 34-0-0 nitrate fertilizer. 100 w/w -NO3 is required. That is why anhydrous ammonium nitrate NH4NO3 fertilizer is being regulated into obsolescence.

That certainly does not stop LE (fed/state) from charging folks who have a several bags of Scotts with possessing bomb making materials if they are looking for something to charge a citizen with. LE gives not a darn if the judge lets you off. They gotchya and that is all they need to do to modify a citizen's behavior from that point forward.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

"Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.

It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

I'm sorry but I don't subscribe to this. With what you're saying we should basically have zero government, for all governments are going to have rules and regulations.

You sniped my post and take it out of context. That is against forum rules and dishonest. Try reading my entire post before you make comments that are made in ignorance.

Originally Posted by Aknazer

While governments over time might push towards tyranny it is up to the people to push back and keep it in its agreed upon place.

Did you read the parable? probably not. How does it relate to RKBA? How many regulations are there that prohibit how you can carry a firearm? Can you carry open or concealed without a permit throughout the United States?

They say that if you put a frog into a pot of boiling water,
it will leap out right away to escape the danger.

But, if you put a frog in a kettle that is filled with water that is cool and pleasant,
and then you gradually heat the kettle until it starts boiling,
the frog will not become aware of the threat until it is too late.
The frog's survival instincts are geared towards detecting sudden changes.

This is a story that is used to illustrate how people might get themselves into terrible trouble.
This parable is often used to illustrate how humans have to be careful to watch slowly changing trends not just the sudden changes. Its a warning to keep us paying attention not just to obvious threats but to more slowly developing ones.

Originally Posted by SovereigntyOrDeath

Regulation fools and their regulation rules is how the state controls you.

The sooner one realizes that, the less tolerant one becomes of tyranny.

Principles of Tyranny
by Jon Roland
Definition of tyranny

Tyranny is usually thought of as cruel and oppressive, and it often is, but the original definition of the term was rule by persons who lack legitimacy, whether they be malign or benevolent. Historically, benign tyrannies have tended to be insecure, and to try to maintain their power by becoming increasingly oppressive. Therefore, rule that initially seems benign is inherently dangerous, and the only security is to maintain legitimacy — an unbroken accountability to the people through the framework of a written constitution that provides for election of key officials and the division of powers among branches and officials in a way that avoids concentration of powers in the hands of a few persons who might then abuse those powers.

Tyranny is an important phenomenon that operates by principles by which it can be recognized in its early emerging stages, and, if the people are vigilant, prepared, and committed to liberty, countered before it becomes entrenched. to read more:http://www.constitution.org/tyr/prin_tyr.htm

emphasis added. To bad the American people became apathetic to the regulation fools and their regulation rules. Have you ever heard or read the parable of how to boil a frog?.......http://allaboutfrogs.org/stories/boiled.html

We must ask ourselves if we want to be safe or have liberty. Remember, the frog felt safe and comfortable until he wasn't.

We The People have been boiled alive.

And just to be clear, I am a staunch supporter of the Constitution as it was written. I am a staunch supporter of the government and way of life our Founding Fathers envisioned. I love my country only behind God and my family.

"OURS is a system of governments, compounded of the separate governments of the several States composing the Union, and of one common government of all its members, called the Government of the United States. The former preceded the latter, which was created by their agency. Each was framed by written constitutions; those of the several States by the people of each, acting separately, and in their sovereign character; and that of the United States, by the same, acting in the same character — but jointly instead of separately.".......John C. Calhoun http://www.constitution.org/jcc/dcgus.htm

emphasis added.

We are the Sovereign, not the King, not the government. We The People.

Emphasis added and text increased for your convenience. I am not yelling as some might think.